With the approaching general election this November, we believe this
to be an important moment for us to address together the responsibility
of Catholics to be well informed and well formed voters.

Except for the election of our next President, the people of
Northwestern Missouri and Northeastern Kansas will be choosing different
candidates for different offices in our two dioceses. Yet the
fundamental moral principles that should guide our choices as Catholic
voters are the same.

For generations it has been the determination of Catholic Bishops not
to endorse political candidates or parties. This approach was initiated
by Archbishop John Carroll - the very first Catholic Bishop serving in
the United States. It was long before there was an Internal Revenue
Service Code, and had nothing to do with a desire to preserve tax-exempt
status. Rather the Church in the United States realized early on that it
must not tether the credibility of the Church to the uncertain future
actions or statements of a particular politician or party. This
understanding of the Church's proper role in society was affirmed in the
Second Vatican Council's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the
Modern Word: "The Church, by reason other role and competence, is
not identified with any political community nor hound by its ties to any
political system. It is at once the sign and the safeguard of the
transcendental dimension of the human person."(Gaudium et Spes
n.76).

A Right to Speak Out on Issues

At the same time, it is important to note that the Catholic Church in
the United States has always cherished its right to speak to the moral
issues confronting our nation. The Church has understood its
responsibility in a democratic society to do its best to form properly
the consciences of her members. In continuity with the long history of
the efforts of American Bishops to assist Catholics with the proper
formation of their consciences, the United States Conference of Catholic
Bishops (USCCB) this past November issued a statement: Forming
Consciences for Faithful Citizenship. In that document our brother
bishops took care to note: "This statement is intended to reflect and
complement, not substitute for, the ongoing teachings of bishops in our
own dioceses and states."

It is in this context that we offer the following reflections to
assist the Catholic people of Northwestern Missouri and Northeastern
Kansas in forming their consciences in preparation for casting their
votes this November.

Many Issues: Prudential Judgments

Every Catholic should he concerned about a wide range of issues. We
believe in a consistent ethic that evaluates every issue through the
prism of its impact on the life and dignity of the human person.
Catholics should care about public policies that:

• promote a just and lasting peace in the world,

• protect our nation from terrorism and other security threats,

• welcome and uphold the rights of immigrants,

• enable health care to be accessible and affordable,

• manifest a special concern for the poor by attending to their
immediate needs and assisting them to gain economic independence,

• protect the rights of parents to be the primary educators of their
children,

• create business and employment opportunities making it possible for
individuals to be able to provide for their own material needs and the
needs of their families,

• reform the criminal justice system by providing better for the
needs of the victims of crimes, protecting the innocent, administering
justice fairly, striving to rehabilitate inmates, and eliminating the
death penalty,

• foster a proper stewardship of the earth that God has entrusted to
our care.

This is by no means an exhaustive list.

While the above issues, as well as many others, have important moral
dimensions, Catholics may and do disagree about the most effective
public policies for responding to them. How these issues are best
addressed and what particular candidates are best equipped to address
them requires prudential judgments —
defined as circumstances in which people can ethically reach different
conclusions.

Catholics have an obligation to study, reflect and pray over the
relative merits of the different policy approaches proposed by
candidates. Catholics have a special responsibility to be well informed
regarding the guidance given by the Church pertaining to the moral
dimensions of these matters. In the end, Catholics in good conscience
can disagree in their judgments about many aspects of the best policies
and the most effective candidates.

The Priority of Rejecting Intrinsic Evil

There are, however, some issues that always involve doing evil, such
as legalized abortion, the promotion of same-sex unions and 'marriages,'
repression of religious liberty, as well as public policies permitting
euthanasia, racial discrimination or destructive human embryonic stem
cell research. A properly formed conscience must give such issues
priority even over other matters with important moral dimensions. To
vote for a candidate who supports these intrinsic evils because he or
she supports these evils is to participate in a grave moral evil. It can
never be justified.

Even if we understand the moral dimensions of the full array of
social issues and have correctly prioritized those involving intrinsic
evils, we still must make prudential judgments in the selection of
candidates. In an ideal situation, we may have a choice between two
candidates who both oppose public policies that involve intrinsic evils.
In such a case, we need to study their approach on all the other issues
that involve the promotion of the dignity of the human person and
prayerfully choose the best individual.

Limiting Grave Evil

In another circumstance, we may he confronted with a voting choice
between two candidates who support abortion, though one may favor some
limitations on it, or he or she may oppose public funding for abortion.
In such cases, the appropriate judgment would be to select the candidate
whose policies regarding this grave evil will do less harm. We have a
responsibility to limit evil if it is not possible at the moment to
eradicate it completely.

The same principle would be compelling to a conscientious voter who
was confronted with two candidates who both supported same-sex unions,
but one opposed abortion and destructive embryonic research while the
other was permissive in these regards. The voter, who himself or herself
opposed these policies, would have insufficient moral justification
voting for the more permissive candidate. However, he or she might
justify resorting to a write-in vote or abstaining from voting at all in
this case, because of a conscientious objection.

In 2004 a group of United States Bishops, acting on behalf of the
USCCB and requesting counsel about the responsibilities of Catholic
politicians and voters, received a memo from the office of Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, which stated:

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so
unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion. if he were to
deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's
permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not
share a candidate's stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but
votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote
material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of
proportionate reasons."

Could a Catholic in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports
legalized abortion when there is a choice of another candidate who does
not support abortion or any other intrinsically evil policy? Could a
voter's preference for the candidate's positions on the pursuit of
peace, economic policies benefiting the poor, support for universal
health care, a more just immigration policy, etc. overcome a candidate's
support for legalized abortion? In such a case, the Catholic voter must
ask and answer the question: What could possibly he a proportionate
reason for the more than 45 million children killed by abortion in the
past 35 years? Personally, we cannot conceive of such a proportionate
reason.

Time for Catholics to Exercise Moral Leadership

The number of Catholics and the percentage of Catholics in the United
States have never been greater. There has never been a moment in our
nation's history when more Catholics served in elective office, presided
in our courts or held other positions of power and authority. It would
be wrong for us to use our numbers and influence to try to compel others
to accept our religious and theological beliefs. However, it would be
equally wrong for us to fail to he engaged in the greatest human rights
struggle of our time, namely the need to protect the right to life of
the weakest and most vulnerable.

We need committed Catholics in both major political parties to insist
upon respect for the values they share with so many other people of
faith and good will regarding the protection of the sanctity of human
life, the upholding of the institution of marriage between a man and a
woman as the foundation of family life, as well as the protection of
religious liberty and conscience rights. It is particularly disturbing
to witness the spectacle of Catholics in public life vocally upset with
the Church for teaching what it has always taught on these moral issues
for 2,000 years, but silent in objecting to the embrace, by either
political party, of the cultural trends of the past few decades that are
totally inconsistent with our nation's history of defending the weakest
and most vulnerable.

Thank you for taking time to consider these reflections on applying
the moral principles that must guide our choices as voters. We are
called to be faithful Catholics and loyal Americans. In fact, we can
only be good citizens if we allow ourselves to be informed by the
unchanging moral principles of our Catholic faith.